JUDGMENT :

R.I. Chagla, J.

This Notice has been filed by the Applicant under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") in respect of foreign award dated 13th July, 2016 ("the foreign award") passed at Singapore. The Applicant has sought leave of this Court to execute the foreign award. The Notice has been contested by the Judgment Debtor/Respondent and the objections are heard in this Notice without the requirement of filing a separate Petition under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the said Act"). The foreign award has been passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed in accordance with Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Rules in arbitration initiated by the Applicant under Clause 14 of the Deed of Agreement dated 7th June, 2013 against the Respondent.

2. The foreign award which is sought to be enforced by the Applicant directs the Respondent to pay :-

(a) EUR 290,920.70, USD 3570,333.49 and GBP 36,162.41 due and owing under the Deed of Agreement dated 7th June, 2013 and alternatively damages in the same amount;

(b) Basic Interest (Basic Interest) in the sums of USD 5751.71 plus EUR 4284.78 plus GBP 573.84 till the date of the Statement of Claim (27th October, 2014) and from 28th October, 2014 until the later of the final New York banking day of December, 2014 or the date of full settlement of the remaining Outstanding Dues;

(c) Default interest in the sums of USD 100,181.49 plus EUR 8919.23 plus GBP 1,120.33 till the date of the Statement of Claim (27th October, 2014) until the settlement of the remaining Outstanding Dues, Outstanding Interest and Basic Interest;

(d) USD 924,877.65 as the Applicant's legal costs and expenses;

(e) SGD 88,308.29 as reimbursement of the advance on costs paid by the Applicant to the SIAC.

3. Before adverting to the objections raised by the Respondent to the Notice, it would be appropriate to set out a brief background of facts which culminated in the foreign award.

4. In 2008, the Applicant, Respondent and one Taurian Manganese ("Taurian") executed two agreements namely Purchase Contract dated 22nd January, 2008 for sale and purchase of manganese and the loan agreement dated 3rd July, 2008 by which the Applicant advanced a loan to the Respondent.

5. Since there were dues owed by the Respondent to the Applicant under the Purchase Contract and Loan Agreement, the Applicant, Respondent and Taurian entered into two agreements namely Cargo Repayment Agreement under which the Respondent admitted its liability to repay the amount USD 2,97,364 which was due to the Applicant for cargo loss or mark loss and which stipulated monthly repayment of the cargo loss by the Respondent and the loan repayment agreement under which the Respondent admitted its liability to repay the amount USD 1,518,655.29 and EURO 1,200,000 and stipulated monthly repayment of the same.

6. Thereafter, the amount due and payable by the Respondent to the Applicant under the aforementioned agreements were crystallized under a single agreement viz. the Deed of Agreement dated 7th June 2013. Under the Deed of Agreement, the Respondent has admitted its debts due to the Applicant and promised to pay in agreed installments. Under the recitals of the Deed of Agreement the parties have categorically agreed and confirmed the amount payable by the Respondent to the Applicant which is mentioned in Clause 3 of the Deed of Agreement. It has stipulated monthly repayment of the aforementioned dues till such amounts mentioned therein were repaid in full. It is further provided in Clause 7(b) of the said Deed of Agreement that in the event of default, the entire amount shall become payable. Clause 10 of the Deed of Agreement provides that the Deed of Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior oral and written negotiations/agreement between the parties. Further, under Clause 14(b) of the said Deed of Agreement all disputes under the Deed of Agreement have been refe